Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds real context beyond them: an owner key/API-key auth requirement, that note/version become public, a rate-limit instruction (Retry-After), the side effect that dormant workers revive on receipt, and the caveat that this does not prove uptime. It stops short of describing failure behavior or idempotency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four terse, front-loaded clauses with zero filler; the core action comes first and each remaining sentence carries a distinct piece of operational information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers auth, side effects, rate limiting and a meaningful caveat. The remaining gap is the absence of any differentiation from the closely related heartbeat sibling tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across five parameters, so the description must carry the load. It partially does, mapping api_key to an owner key and flagging note/version as public, but agent_id and status are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Send a self-reported heartbeat from the actual worker") and clarifies the origin is the worker itself. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the near-identical sibling agent_health_heartbeat, leaving the agent to guess which one applies.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: "from the actual worker" and "Honor Retry-After" hint at who calls it and how to retry, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to agent_health_heartbeat as the alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.